A CURRY factory worker told he didn’t understand recipes because he was white and should go and work for an English firm has won his claim of race discrimination.

When Colin Sorby, 31, complained about the ‘stereotypical’ comments at one of the UK’s leading food manufacturers, his shifts dried up and he was effectively sacked.

The employment tribunal ruled the comments at Bradford-based Mumtaz Foods violated the production worker’s dignity.

His supervisor Azheem Akhtar thought only British Asians like himself should be allowed to work at the company that supplies meals to Indian restaurants and supermarkets, the hearing was told.

Mr Akhtar, originally from Pakistan, claimed he apologised, but the tribunal did not accept this as no disciplinary action was taken against him.

The employment judge, T R Smith, said: “The comment was not trivial or unintended and Mr Akhtar’s intention was to try and persuade the claimant to leave the First Respondent’s employment.”

Mr Akhtar said his offensive comment was a misunderstanding due to language difficulties but the employment judge pointed to incidents during the tribunal, saying “on one occasion Mr Akhtar started answering a question in English in a perfectly comprehensible manner.”

He went on: “The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Akhtar called the Claimant to one side in the production area on 16 October 2019 and told the Claimant that this was an Asian company and he should go and work for an English company.”

The tribunal attached considerable significance to a text from Mr Sorby that same day, asking the HR department to speak to Mr Akhtar as to his remark.

Mr Akhtar also claimed he apologised, but the tribunal did not accept this either. They said he was an “unreliable witness” who was vague and, at times, evasive.

Mr Sorby, described as white British, was recruited by Bradford Management Services, a subsidiary of Mumtaz, in July last year on a zero hours contract.

He worked considerable hours most weeks. The company handbook had an equal opportunity policy.

In November there was a meeting between Mr Sorby and human resources manager Paulo Silva over a faulty machine he had reported.

Notes of a staff meeting showed there were no concerns as regards the claimant’s attendance or performance as was suggested.

But things changed four days later when he was told he was being placed “on call” - a euphemism for being dismissed. He was asked to clear his locker and hand in property.

He was also advised to look for another job because he was told he would not be offered any more work.

He was initially told by Mr Silva this action was being taken because of his poor attendance and performance.

The judge said: “All the Claimant was told as regards his performance was, he was English and not Asian and therefore didn’t know the cuisine and didn’t know how to cook food properly.”

When he pressed where these allegations came from, he was told by Mr Silva that they emanated from Mr Akhtar.

Three weeks earlier Mr Sorby had made the complaint about his supervisor who had been employed by the respondent for over 15 years.

No mention was made at the previous meeting of any problems he had following recipes.

The judge said: “The effect of the comment was that due to the fact the Claimant was not English he could not cook Asian food properly. This was a stereotypical assumption that was not predicated on any factual basis.

“Again, the context is everything. Mr Akhtar was seeking to justify why the Claimant’s employment should, effectively, be terminated.

“The Tribunal is satisfied that the remark was made and it was used to justify what was effectively the Claimant’s termination of employment - albeit he was told was placed ‘on call’.

The judge said Mr Akhtar was a long serving employee who described himself as a friend of company director Bilal Akbar.

The judge added: “In summary he complained, he was told he would not get any more work, despite the fact the First Respondent had been hiring new labour. He said he’d been told that complaints had been made by Mr Akhtar and he considered this was retribution for the fact the Claimant had raised concerns as the comment made to him by Mr Akhtar.”

The tribunal upheld Mr Sorby’s claims for racial discrimination, harassment and victimisation. Compensation will be awarded at a remedy hearing on a date to be fixed.

After the judgement was published, Mr Sorby said: "I'm overjoyed with the decision, it's taken a long time to go through the whole process.

"It was deplorable [the way I was treated], as soon as I had made the complaint I was made to feel ostracised by Mr Akhtar and my allegations weren't taken seriously."